“People work in education because they care about people, about students, about communities; they have a strong ethical dimension,” says Carol Azumah Dennis, professor of education, policy and practice at the Open University. “But the context they’re working with doesn’t allow that its full expression.” 

FE and skills leaders at every level of an institution – team managers and practice heads, senior staff shaping delivery, principals and CEOs – share a responsibility to cultivate and drive a transparent, accountable culture based on ethical principles, as outlined in the Professional Standards. “This culture is a set of values inherent in the actions and decisions of leaders,” says Stephen Corbett, interim pro-vice-chancellor, Faculty of Education, Health and Human Sciences, at the University of Greenwich. “A consolidated approach to ethical leadership in FE and skills is taking a fair and respectful approach that’s student-centric while valuing staff, to make a positive contribution to society.” 

Ethical leaders recognise that these principles should underpin all management processes, believes Gary Husband, professor of professional education at the University of Sunderland. “There are frameworks we need to abide by, but if decision-making is driven by external factors that are more important to us than the students, it’s time to start asking what we’re doing this for.” 

Ticking regulatory boxes without employing a lens of moral purpose falls short of ethical leadership. Leading with purpose means creating a culture of fairness, dignity, inclusion and aspiration that allows people to thrive, outlines Jeff Greenidge, director for diversity and governance at the Association of Colleges. “And that’s about our values; the ethical frameworks we adhere to.” 

The Professional Standards require CEOs, principals and senior teams to achieve quality, financial viability and legislative compliance in running their organisations – all while applying ethical considerations. Maintaining that moral purpose in the face of tough operational realities is challenging, but vital, because FE and skills leaders’ actions directly affect staff and student lives. “It’s important that a principled and values-driven approach is present continuously, otherwise it becomes disingenuous,” warns Corbett.  

But how does this approach play out in daily behaviours and decisions made under pressure? First and foremost, all leaders need to recognise that ethical behaviours have to achieve a compliance outcome, points out Greenidge, and they should avoid romanticising their ideals. “Operationalise that moral purpose instead; make your values explicit and set them as criteria for your decision-making.”  

But areas of operation that are rigidly audited, such as financial stewardship, can feel as though they offer little scope for ethical decision-making in practice. “There’s conflict between what we can afford, what we have to be seen to spend money on, and where it’s actually needed,” adds Greenidge, with, says Husband, budgetary constraints putting leaders “on the ragged edge of being able to maintain values and ethical approaches”.  

The route through for senior leaders is to maintain their own agency, grounding fair resource allocation in established, consistent, fair principles while resisting the influence of outside pressures. “For example, with the level of learner support you offer, a restriction is always going to be there because the budget isn’t infinite,” explains Dennis. “Your practical policy determines which people get support, and which others don’t – and that calls for ethical leadership.” 

FE and skills leaders will frequently find themselves having to balance short-term decisions to save services or courses against the risk of the ultimate failure of the institution, and the damage caused to the wider community by its loss, points out Husband. “If you spend now, but can’t make the whole institution survive for the next 10 years, the impact of that is greater than having to make adjustments in the immediate term.” 

Safeguarding is another heavily regulated area where leaders have to operate within fixed frameworks and legislation, but one that nonetheless demands a nuanced approach rooted in ethics. Dennis cites the Prevent duty, which requires FE and skills leaders to flag radicalisation risk among learners, and run risk assessments, counter terrorism procedures and staff training. Leaders must make decisions on whether to approve contentious guest speakers or host potentially controversial events on their premises, all while adhering to a legal duty to allow freedom of speech.  

It also raises the very real possibility of deciding whether to take action that will change the course of a learner’s life. “Someone might just be an intense individual who likes to discuss inflammatory ideas,” says Dennis. “But you have to judge whether to report them, because the potential ramifications of not doing so are so great.” The duty of care both to the individual and the wider community requires leaders to assess all possible outcomes and act with extreme diligence.  

Curricula is an area where FE leaders find themselves constantly having to reach a challenging compromise. Offering cost-effective courses to the maximum number of students is often an essential income stream, but leaders have to weigh profit against less clearly measurable values. “It’s easy to put on a class where all you need is paper, a table and a teacher. But if you want to teach carpentry or car mechanics, it’s hugely expensive,” points out Dennis. “Are we driven by what’s cheap? Or do we respond to the needs of a local community, or what enhances somebody’s employability? It’s not that one choice is ethical and one unethical. But it’s important to acknowledge the other social, cultural and community dimensions of learning.”  

In operational decision-making, leaders have to mould to the context they’re working within, and that includes the wider FE and skills ecosystem. This increasingly extends beyond individual institutions, with funding, services and staffing dilemmas playing out across local skills systems, employer partnerships and government jurisdictions, including local and devolved authorities. When building their ethical policies, leaders should view themselves as system actors as well as organisational representatives. 

The Education Training Foundation’s (ETF) Professional Standards for Leaders highlights ethical leadership as one of 10 key themes, and puts a requirement on leaders to “understand and practise ethical leadership, including consideration of ethical decision-making”. This outlines role-modelling behaviours to inspire a positive working culture; cultivating a safe and inclusive organisational culture; and enabling inspirational teaching that has a positive impact. EFT’s Professional Development Platform helps leaders analyse current skills and identify areas for development. 

Other leadership frameworks offering guidance towards ethical leadership include the Association of Colleges’ Further Education Code of Good Governance. One of its six principles is leadership and integrity, promoting high ethical standards, transparency and openness.  

Despite the support for ethical leadership within policies and frameworks, there are inevitably points at which they limit leaders’ ability to make ethical decisions for their institution. “FE is a heavily regulated sector and you can be compliant but actually end up doing the ‘wrong’ thing,” suggests Greenidge. “The more guidance given, the more it becomes a straitjacket, until a framework becomes a procedural document that has to be adhered to.” 

Such restrictions are felt particularly acutely within institutions that have to abide by charity law, have heavily audited finances or have strict safety procedures, such as prison settings. “When we’re only valuing what can be measured, institutions can be forced to make decisions that might not sit well with their own values,” says Husband. “That can lead to pressures on staffing, staff treatment or the student experience, because people are fighting to meet the metrics.”